Russell Shaw on the laity, again - his moneymaker: The Council and the Laity. "The teaching of the Second Vatican Council concerning the laity was an enormous and lasting achievement. But there is much work to do."

Vatican II and the forerunners to the council, various theologians and saints, attempted to restore a better understanding of the Christian vocation, re-emphasizing the universal call to holiness. But I would argue that the council was incomplete, in so far as it did not grapple with questions appropriate to politics. Would it have been possible to do so? Such a treatment should be left to the wise and learned. But with the realization that the scale of contemporary "polities" is too large, the Church could have focused more on rebuilding community at the local level, rather than engaging governments to redirect "national policy" in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching. An elaboration of general principles is not enough, one must apply them properly, and in order to do that one must have an adequate grasp of their particulars, their causes and perhaps their histories.

If participation in the life of the community is a central part to the lay vocation, then perhaps the Orthodox and the Protestants have Catholics beat and we should be learning from them.

I would claim that much of the loss in the West of the understanding of the lay vocation is tied to the growth of the modern state, the rise of wage slavery, the loss or deliberate destruction of communities. Man (and now women) have been increasingly dispossessed of their natural roles within a community; or, their awareness of these roles has been obliterated through bad culture or the lack of proper formation.

As Shaw points out, Lumen Gentium reminds us that Catholics are called to act in the secular world for the salvation of others. What is the "secular world" but the "temporal" or "natural" political community? We should be witnessing to Christ and living out [the order of] charity in our political communities (and I don't mean with a vague reference to the nation-state, but rather, the local community, and maybe the state). (We should keep in mind the distinction between the political community and the "world" which is rightly derided by our Lord. They are not the same thing. The city of man is not identical to the civitas.)

Despite the constant propaganda about [American] freedom and democracy (put forth even by the bishops), there has been a loss of true citizenship. We are blind to our current state of subservience, possessing little economic or political freedom (at the national level). Those Christians who lived under other regimes may have had a better understanding of the lay vocation - living with others in community, carrying out their responsibilities to others in charity, and so on, despite having no share in public office. It is true that the lay vocation is not identical to citizenship, as defined by Aristotle. But for men, the lay vocation does require the exercise of the same virtues proper to the citizen, even if it does not include the same duties: prudence and ordering his affairs and that of his family, cooperating with other men for the sake of the group, and so on. To the extent that men must be concerned with and care for the community, they will need the political virtues; even more if they are engaged in decision-making about the well-being of the community.

There can be no subsidiarity (or recovery of the common good) unless men are willing and able to do this at the local level, going beyond what our impoverished Uhmerican understanding of citizenship requires.

Charity brings about the diffusion of the good. Not just the obvious corporal and spiritual works of mercy, but whatever action within the community that is ordered to the good of others can be sanctified through God's grace. In the Politics, Aristotle defines the perfect community as that which supplies for all the necessities of the good life, and it includes civic friendship. We are accustomed to liberal modes of thinking and to living in aggregate, an arrangement that is not scaled humanely, and so often we think of friendship as being merely one good among the others. We aim for a healthy "life balance," so that our relationships with family and friends are not diminished because of concerns for career and the like. But the common good is really the good life of the whole; living well with others. All other things which the civitas creates or makes possible is ordered to the good of the members.

The private good of the members is not the same as the social good (the good of friendship, community, etc.) but the common good is more than the sum of the private good of the members of the community, and the community exists for the sharing of higher goods. It is the good of the group as a whole, which includes the social good as its foremost manifestation, the members living well with one another. It also includes the sharing or communication of the other goods, which should be directed by the desire to live well with others, or love. In the polis, Aristotle's complete or perfect community, we are able to achieve [temporal or natural] happiness, securing not only the necessities for survival, but the social good and other goods, leisure, the fine arts, and learning.

We should not [need to] pursue private goods at the expense of friendship, but rather we should do so in concert with others so that we can share those goods with them. "To be a friend is to share," a lesson we may have learned in kindergarten. The civitas may have a division of labor, with the resulting exchange of necessities or products being regulated by justice, but we are oblivious that we should be acting not only for our own benefit but for the benefit of others. Why? Because we have a weak sense of the group and of civic friendship. For instance, that which is aimed at intellectual perfection (scientiae, the products of art, and so on) is not merely for the elite, but should benefit all in some way. (The truths studied in theology and the liberal arts can be transmitted to the community through preaching by an educated clergy)

The natural inclination to the social life finds its fulfillment in civic friendship, and civic friendship (or charity) urges us to work for the perfection of each other. This inclination is naturally met through families joining one another in community, leading to natural affection for the other members, which is developed through civic friendship or sublimated through caritas. In sum, we naturally band together, associate not because we seek help or benefit from others, but because we are drawn to living with others. One could even claim that cooperation and the division of labor is a consequence of living with others, as everyone in the group seeks to improve the lot of themselves and of the group.

Political communities, like religious communities, are schools of charity for Christians. For those who are not yet united to God, political communities can nonetheless still be schools of love and friendship, the way for us to practice loving others well. The political community is the pinnacle of natural friendship, and so those who aspire to be statesmen or to be practically wise must be cognizant of the conditions that are necessary to bring this about, and this includes the role of culture and group identity. Friendship is not a happy by-product of successful politics; it is one of its aims. One might even say that the first concern of men is the good of the group - what is my group? How do I preserve it and work for its welfare? Who is included in my group and who is not? The outsider is not automatically the object of hatred or enmity, but such distinctions are necessary for following the order of charity.

As lay people striving to rebuild the local community, we need to relearn the primacy of civic friendship, and start from the beginning, with men and their families networking with each other, rather than presuming that community (or mutual solidarity) exists. We may be aware of some of the trials and problems of living with others through our families, but life is not supposed to be free from difficulties, and these difficulties are occasions for us to grow in grace and holiness through the exercise of caritas.

I looked at the photos for the Pontifical Mass in NJ - I couldn't identify with the church architecture, the number of servers, some of the vestments, like the cappa magna... The power of emotion and negative association to dissociate partly explains my reaction.

I have read criticisms of the "triumphalism" of Eastern bishops - the temptation to power and ostentation. I don't have a problem with vestments signifying a distinction between ordained and non-ordained ministers of the altar and the rest of the faithful, or as a way of dressing up for liturgical services, a reminder that the activity is sacred and apart from "profane" affairs. But the mitre? It's relatively recent in origin. The mitre came into use relatively late, some time during the second millenium of [apostolic] Christianity, depending on the area - early second millienium in the West, mid-second millenium in the East.

The camelaucum, which is the origin of the papal tiara and of the Latin mitre - I have to say that the cone shape (of its later form?) reminds me of a dunce cap. To us it may seem rather silly to wear a hat of that shape and height, but the height certainly has ancient antecedents. Tall hats may be an indulgence in peacocking; E. Asians at least had an excuse for their tall headgear because they tied their hair into a top knot, so the extra height was necessary to accomodate their hair.

While the origin of the mitre is unconnected to the headwear of the Jewish priesthood, could it be that they might share the same rationale? (Was the wearing of such a covering for Jewish priests a sign of humility? Is it similar to the reason for Jews to wear the kippah or some other covering? How would St. Paul respond to such a practice?)

How can one reconcile the desire for simplicity and humility with the nobility of one's office? The crown, especially as it was employed by the secular authority, seems to be an instance of lording one's power over others, given the use of ornament and precious materials, to glorify one's self over other men. Some defend the use of a crown, claiming that the weight of the crown is a reminder of the gravity of the office and the multitude of responsibilities, but is such a defense really successful, whether applied to kings or bishops? Indeed, an "evangelical" critic might say that the only crown bishops should deign wear is that of thorns, in emulation of their Lord. The Latin mitre, as it has evolved, did come to have similar excesses (jewels and the like), though distinctions were made as to when it was proper to wear such a mitre as opposed to simpler mitres (in accordance with feast days or liturgical seasons). I do not know if such distinctions are still mandated or observed with the Pope Paul VI's missal. But at least it wasn't derived from an imperial crown, unlike the Byzantine mitre. (Though its probable origin, the camelaucum, was part of the dress of imperial officials.)

Still, one may argue that the mitre is necessary to represent the episcopal office, and to designate ranking in holy orders. For more advanced cultures (that possess a diversity of functions and authorities), rank is based on function, hierarchy on authority. If the crown is necessary for court ceremonial, as a sign of distinction, to represent or symbolize one's office, then the same is true of a mitre for the church ceremonial? The papal tiara is used for non-liturgical ceremonial functions, the mitre, liturgical. But what is the most important function of the bishop? How should we conceive of his office? Are they spiritual fathers? Or should they be compared to secular rules? Or a blend of both?

During the first millenium the omophor (omophorion) signifies the office of bishop, in the East. So why was the adoption of the Byzantine mitre necessary? In the West, the pallium was first reserved to the pope and then given to metropolitans and primates. Would it be possible to change this to conform to Eastern practice, with or without a change in ecclesiology, organizational structure, and canon law? (In the West, then one could claim that the mitre is necessary to distinguish bishop from priest, as the pallium does not serve this function.)

It is argued that popes and bishops receive and accept such regalia out of humility and an adherence to tradition. But cannot such a man-made tradition be dispensed with if it is pastorally unnecessary and a possible source of misunderstanding for non-Christians? Who would have the authority to do so, only the pope, legislating for the universal Church? Or individual bishops? Pope Paul VI symbolically gave up the papal tiara, and none of his successors have used it though they have the option of doing so. But the mitre has been retained. What if the bishops were to return to a simpler cap, something flatter resembling one of the earlier forms of the Latin mitre or the possible earliest form of the camelaucum, a flat white cap? Or what about simply replacing the mitre with the zuchetto or something similar to the biretta?

Notes:It is said that the chasuble and the stole represent the yoke of Christ, while the pallium represents the lost sheep of the Good Shepherd. I still prefer the shape of a traditional Latin chasuble and the Roman cassock as a robe, but I like the epitrachelion. Is there variation as to how high the front of the phelonion may be cut?

I might have seen her name mentioned at VFR before, but I had not bothered to look at her website until now. Apparently she is Catholic. (And a traditionalist might ask, "How traditional?") I don't know how good her business/economic analysis and advice are.

Here's one possible reason for people giving a pass to biologically and demographically impossible societies in fiction, they don't think across generations. We humans think within our lifetimes and many times fail to even do that. To imagine a future one, two or three generations down the line is not likely to happen. We've seen it play out in history. The whole time the western Roman empire was failing the Romans themselves couldn't quite put their fingers on why it was failing to a degree that would stop much less retard that failure. They were captives to choices made in a past not of their making therefore not in their minds.

This is probably why talk about scale and sustainability (and the problems of mass immigration, the loss of traditional sexual mores, and the rise of unmarried mothers) will go over the heads of most people.

And why not? That body, along with that smile, that face, and a heavy dose of confidence, has been her meal ticket, yielding one of the most impressive and long-lasting modeling careers in the profession’s history, from a 13-year stint with Victoria‘s Secret to the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. And now it’s given her a platform for her transition from body to brain. Just as her highly lucrative modeling career darkens on the near horizon, the sun is lifting on her business ventures, which include two hugely popular television shows, a kids’ clothing partnership with Babies “R” Us, a sportswear line with New Balance, and jewelry and perfume businesses, all of which ForbesLife estimates will earn her $20 million this year.

She got lucky because of her celebrity and her supposed fashion taste. So that's all it takes, then, to be praised as an entrepreneur or businesswomen, taking advantage of the opportunities that one has because of the avarice and stupidity of others. Makes sense. Never mind the fact that despite her fame and fortune, she's made a mess of her children's life, if not her own. (We should expect that she is publicly oblivious to any such mess, especially in her own life.) As long as she represents the spirit of capitalism, the pursuit of money, and the promotion of consumerism, she is a role model. (And what can we reply to those who would say she is also a role model for mothers?)

She once did have a "natural" beauty and physical attractiveness which contrasted greatly with the models walking down runways and featured in fashion magazines. But if you hear her talk you wouldn't have any doubts about whether she possessed any qualities (especially of the mind) which belonged to Elizabeth Bennet. Jennifer Ehle could at least act like an adult in that adaptation of P&P. So many of our female celebrities act and talk like stunted adolescents on- and off-screen.

Anyway, would there be such a problem if the Federal national military were not such a large institution? If we still followed the Constitution and recognized that the states have the right to "establish" church, along with the stipulation that the states would provide for the bulwark of defense through their military units, would this be such a problem?

Even with a national military that is limited in size, what do we do about its members' spiritual needs? This could officially be left to the states or the established churches of the states? Or to independent churches or ecclesial communities ministering to the members. (At present, our military chaplains have to be under the authority of the military, for whatever reason, and hence the necessity of the Archdiocese of the Military?)

In the four weeks of Advent, the Church stops us from skimming on the surface of reality: eating, working, shopping, sleeping, waking up and doing it all over again. These are part of the dance of life, but they are not its sum. “Angst” is a neurosis stemming from an unwillingness to face the Choreographer behind the choreography. Those threadbare philosophers who made existence an “ism” were very anxious indeed, smoking their cigarettes in cafes across the street from vacant churches.A culture trapped in its own existence becomes no greater than itself. That old maxim perdures no matter how many times it is repeated: “A man wrapped up in himself becomes a very small package.” More important than wrapping gifts in Advent, is the obligation to unwrap the self: to confess to Christ the sins that belittle his image in man, and to live life as he wants it, so that we might rejoice with him forever and never be separated from him.Our culture is enduring a severe test of itself. If Christ does not govern minds and hearts, mere humans will volunteer to do it, and they will do it badly. When the Judges of Israel could think only about their own existence with reference to how other people existed apart from divine regiment, they wanted a human king. Samuel warned them: “He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves and give them to his officials…. He will tithe your flocks, and you yourselves will become slaves” (1 Samuel 8:14, 17). These days, he will take a lot more than ten per cent.

I've mentioned this before: Ron Hansen is deacon at the local parish. Will he be at the OLG celebration tonight? The auxiliary bishop will be celebrating the [Mariachi] Mass. The local LCs will probably be present as well.

I haven't decided if I will attend Mass, though it does satisfy the obligation to attend Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. Even if I go, I probably won't stay for the reception afterwards.

These two hard facts, the imminence of imperial downfall and the unwillingess of the existing order to accept that imminence, impose certain consequences on the decades ahead of us. Some of the most obvious of those consequences are economic. The American standard of living, as I’ve pointed out more than once, has been buoyed to its current frankly absurd level by a tribute economy that funnels much of the wealth of the world to the the United States. We’ve all heard the self-congratulatory nonsense that insists that this nation’s prosperity is a product of American ingenuity or what have you, but let us please be real; nothing Americans do—nothing, that is, other than maintaining garrisons in more than 140 countries and bombing the bejesus out of nations that get too far out of line—justifies the fact that the five per cent of humanity that can apply for a US passport get to use a quarter of the planet’s energy and a third of its natural resources and industrial product.As our empire ends, that vast imbalance will go away forever. It really is as simple as that. In the future now breathing down our necks, Americans will have to get used to living, as our not so distant ancestors did, on a much more modest fraction of the world’s wealth—and they’ll have to do it, please remember, at a time when the ongoing depletion of fossil fuels and other nonrenewable resources, and the ongoing disruption of the environment, are making ever sharper inroads on the total amount of wealth that’s there to distribute in the first place. That means that everything that counts as an ordinary American lifestyle today is going to go away in the decades ahead of us. It also means that my American readers, not to mention everyone else in this country, are going to be very much poorer in the wake of empire than they are today.That’s a sufficiently important issue that I’ve discussed it here a number of times already, and it bears repeating. All too many of the plans currently in circulation in the green end of US alternative culture covertly assume that we’ll still be able to dispose of wealth on the same scale as we do today. The lifeboat ecovillages beloved by the prepper end of that subculture, just as much as the solar satellites and county-sized algal biodiesel farms that feature in the daydreams of their green cornucopian counterparts, presuppose that such projects can be supplied with the startup capital, the resources, the labor, and all the other requirements they need.

The first teaser is out - and it seems as dumbed down as the first J. J. Abrams movie. While we may laugh at the '60s choreographed fight sequences in the original series, did they really have to ape the video game sequences we see nowadays?

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Will there be resistance among traditionalists? Or will they be allowed to keep the EF as long as necessary?Will the 3-year lectionary be discarded in favor of a modified traditional one-year lectionary that incorporates a third reading, a lesson from the OT? Many agree that the traditional Roman rite would be enriched by the addition of more prefaces and other prayers, as well as new saints on the Roman calendar. Will the calendar itself be reformed, so that it is more like the old calendar? (Dates of various feasts were changed for one reason or another.)

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement.""In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said."However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

One single form of the Roman rite, to be developed "organically" rather than be legislative fiat through the work of a committee? It will be difficult for this mutual enrichment to occur if Summorum Pontificum is not really being observed in Roman-rite churches.

Quick OverviewWar and Democracy presents a selection of essays and reviews by Paul Gottfried written from 1975 to the present. They cover a variety of topics, both historical and contemporary, ranging from Oswald Spengler and the Frankfurt School to the destruction of classical liberalism, the dumbing down of higher education and the increasing dominance of administration in democratic governments. Most crucially, Gottfried sees Western governments as engaged in a messianic fantasy of bringing democracy to the world, an imperialist endeavor that has only brought disaster to all nations concerned, while liberties at home are being gradually curtailed.

To save culture, those of us who love culture need to take it back from the professionals.

Peak oil seems like as good an excuse as any to take back the arts. Just as people who want to make their communities more resilient in the face of peak oil seek to re-localize food production and manufactures, they should also seek to re-amatueurize culture.

JOSH WILLIAMS JOINS RHONDA & THE RAGEThe Queen of Bluegrass – Rhonda Vincent, says goodbye to four-year Rage member, guitarist Ben Helson. Ben is a graduate of Bethel University, and currently the Bluegrass Director of the Bethel University Renaissance program. With the departure of Ben Helson, Rhonda welcomes three-time IBMA Guitar Player of the Year, Josh Williams, to the most award winning band in Bluegrass music – Rhonda Vincent & The Rage.“We love Ben so very much, he will be missed,” Rhonda stated. “This is a bitter sweet time, as I am thrilled at the return of Josh Williams to The Rage. Josh is one of the most talented musicians I’ve ever heard. We are excited to begin a new chapter of The Rage, and mark a historical reunion. Our first performance featuring the new assemblage will be televised. Rehearsals begin right away to share ideas and create the absolute best show ever for our 2013 appearances."Josh Williams is widely known for his musical talents, but also his bird watching skills. Video was captured when a bird landed on his guitar, and stayed through the entire song of “Mordecai.” http://youtu.be/7vBo0ptYJNsHe is a multi-instrumentalist, and will be a featured member of The Rage on guitar, harmony and lead vocals, and other instruments.Josh will join veteran members of The Rage, including: 11-year member, award winning fiddler Hunter Berry from Elizabethton, TN; 10-year member Mickey Harris on upright bass, lead and harmony vocals, from Murfreesboro, TN; four-year member, banjo player Aaron McDaris from Hartville, MO; and one-year member, Brent Burke from Pell City, AL.With so much talent and experience, this looks to be the best band to date for Rhonda Vincent. Appearances begin January 3, 2013 in Livermore, California, 1/4 Bakersfield, CA, 1/5 Wickenburg, AZ.

May not get to the post-election discussion post, we'll see. Mark T. Michell has a new book out - here's an excerpt: The Politics of Gratitude: Scale, Place and Community in a Global Age. He offers his perspective on a plan of action: Opportunity in the Ruins. His program, unsurprisingly, is a localist one. I have been preparing something on the limits of collaborating with those who disagree on traditional mores - such an effort can be effective with respect to less controversial issues (regaining economic freedom, opposing corporations, pursuing agrarianism, environmental safety and health care issues, and so on), but how much can such mutual tolerance last? And can such a "peace" last long if we do not have natural ties to those who are opposed to tradition? This may be the best option for many, but we do not live together only for mutual advantage, but to enjoy friendship (based on virtue) with one another, but how can such friendship with those who seek to do away with tradition be possible?

So long as people think of the state as the guarantor of our well-being, with the right and duty to protect us from life’s ills, the families, churches, neighbors, and social organizations in which decent lives are lived and tragedy mitigated in a humane manner, will continue to atrophy unto death. Even here the political program is clear: government and the federal government in particular, must cede power, must decentralize and give up its commanding role at the same time it frees more local associations to form and carry out the tasks that naturally belong to them. Features of our tax code, corporate law, public policy, and misinterpreted constitutional law all actively prevent the flourishing of families, churches, and local associations. But so long as people think of the state as our guardian, they will not enact policies that empower the associations in which we can lead decent lives. This should tell us that the real work ahead of us is cultural in nature. Such a statement should come as no surprise to traditional conservatives, but it bears repeating when one is considering the question, “what now?” A program for traditional conservatives is needed, but must be aimed at cultural and spiritual rejuvenation, which may, in time, bring about a return to political sanity. The good thing about a situation such as ours, in which we have been routed for decades in every sphere, is that there is no end of choices of where to begin working for improvement. I hope in future posts to address some major areas of concern in at least some detail. For now I would merely point out that a program for traditional conservatives will, if it is to be useful, focus on what we can do in the places where we live, work, and worship, to create an atmosphere for cultural renewal.

As a young man he sang in the nightclubs in Paris, but then over the years there emerged the vocation to the priesthood he had had since his childhood. His guides were Fr. Joseph-Marie Perrin, who was Simone Weil's spiritual director, and Fr. Marie-Dominique Philippe, founder of the congregation of Saint John. He studied in Rome at the Angelicum, the theological faculty of the Dominicans. He was ordained a priest in 2004 by Cardinal Bernard Panafieu, the archbishop of Marseille at the time. He writes books, the latest of which is entitled "Au diable la tiédeur," to the devil with lukewarmness, and is dedicated to priests. He is pastor at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul.

From the article by Marina Corradi:

Why the cassock? "For me" – he smiles – "It is a work uniform. It is intended to be a sign for those who meet me, and above all for those who do not believe. In this way I am recognizable as a priest, always. In this way on the streets I take advantage of every opportunity to make friends. Father, someone asks me, where is the post office? Come on, I'll go with you, I reply, and meanwhile we talk, and I discover that the children of that man are not baptized. Bring them to me, I say in the end; and I often baptize them later. I seek in every way to show with my face a good humanity. Just the other day" – he laughs – "in a cafe an old man asked me which horses he should bet on. I gave him the horses. I asked the Blessed Mother for forgiveness: but you know, I said to her, it is to befriend this man. As a priest who was one of my teachers used to tell those who asked him how to convert the Marxists: 'One has to become their friend,' he would reply."

I doubt it. Another attempt by the pope to "Christianize" mass media, specifically social networking tools. To make the pope more accessible? Does that not give the impression that the Church has "centralized" rule? What happened to moving the Church away from that model and self-understanding?

We shouldn't be surprised that the loss of a physical structure to community (the compartamentalization of life that finds its culmination in the suburbs) results in the loss of formal structure as well.

In fact, the heart of our economic predicament is that the American economy came to be based on the construction of ever more suburban stuff, the financing of which, especially the houses, became the fodder for an episode of epic swindles that has left our banking system a hollowed out shell of accounting fraud. In short, we built even more stuff with no future, and ruined our society in the process. How tragic is that?The behavioral habits, practices, and consequences of being stuck in that living arrangement may end up being at least as problematic as the physical residue of it. It has left the people in a network of alienation, anxiety, and misery that defeats exactly the mentality needed to break free of it. For the truth is we're faced with a massive necessary re-ordering of daily life in this country, and there is no vision or will to get on with job.Among the tribulations of this living arrangement is the utter loss of connection between place and purpose often expressed in the phrase "loss of community," which is a little too abstract to me and fails to convey the tragedy of individuals living with no sense of purpose -- and by that I mean duties, obligations, and responsibilities to other human beings.Obviously, the whole idea of a single-family house by definition dictates a certain disposition of things. It will lack the dimension and social relations of a household composed of multiple generations plus non-family members, helpers, employees, servants. And it should also be obvious that the single-generation, single-family house is a product of mid-20th century industrial dynamism that made even factory worker wage slaves rich by historical standards - Tom Wolfe pointed out years ago that the average GM assembly line drone enjoyed more sheer physical luxury at home than Louis XIV.

Was Smith merely reporting (or writing down his own perceptions) the behavior of others in his place and time, and then generalizing and ascribing this motivation as being basic to human behavior? Can we expect economic actors to be motivated by something other than self-interest? Charity, civic friendship (or civic fraternity) and social, or legal, justice (or solidarity)? Let us not forge the destruction of the bonds of a local community and of other associations like the guilds. When one has been raised without being trained to love others, what should one expect, other than the pursuit of self-interest? Natural affections can only encompass so many people, but even love of the group can only cover so many. If the group is too big, then it is only natural and reasonable that people will start making distinctions within that group in the order of love in accordance to proximity, affinity, shared history, reciprocity, and so on.